California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures
September 22, 2016 —
Patrick J. Paul – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn July 21, 2016, the California Supreme Court in Property Reserve v. Superior Court upheld the state’s precondemnation entry and testing statutes provided they were reformed to allow impacted property owners the ability to have a jury trial to determine damages associated with such entry and testing.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) sought to construct water conveyance facilities that would require significant property condemnation. As part of this process, DWR further sought to investigate the environmental and geological suitability of more than 150 private properties considered for the conveyance route.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Paul may be contacted at
ppaul@swlaw.com
Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances
October 23, 2018 —
Scott Van Voorhis – Engineering News-RecordTutor Perini is struggling to shake off long-running concerns over the hundreds of millions in unbilled costs that have been on the contractor’s balance sheet for years. The Sylmar, Calif.-based construction giant reported more than $1 billion in unbilled costs or receivables at the end of the second quarter, up by more than $100 million from the start of the year, according to the company’s federal filings. That was $100 million higher than at the end of 2016, when the amount was $832 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns
October 19, 2020 —
Richard P. Higgins - Construction ExecutiveNo one could have expected the coronavirus pandemic in the beginning of 2020. True, there were rumblings about a sickness in China that was highly contagious and infecting many people. Death tolls began rising as the world watched in disbelieve. After all, this is 2020. This is not supposed to happen. We should have been able to control the spread of the virus, but we could not. COVID-19 quickly spread throughout the world causing havoc and economic despair.
While some sectors of the construction industry are not as impacted as others, contractors industry-wide need to consider how COVID-19 will impact their contractual obligations. Depending on what happens and what the government decides to do to stop the spread of the coronavirus, project delays, supply chain distributions, lost productivity and work stoppages may continue for months. All of this will impact the contracts that contractors have with owners. Contractors may not be able to preform according to the terms of the contract through no fault of their own. Owners may no longer qualify for the financing needed to pay for the project.
FORCE MAJEURE
According to Investopedia, “force majeure refers to a clause that is included in contracts to remove liability for natural and unavoidable catastrophes that interrupt the expected course of events and prevent participants from fulfilling obligations.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard P. Higgins, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Higgins may be contacted at
Richard.Higgins@MCC-CPAs.com
No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law write Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly addressing the question of “whether defective construction constitutes an ‘occurrence’ (and therefore may be covered) under liability insurance policies.” They note that some courts have held that construction defects are not an occurrence but instead are the “natural consequence of performing substandard work.” Other courts conclude that while construction defects are not occurrences, “the resulting damage may be covered because it was fortuitous and unintended.” And, finally, other courts have concluded that “defective construction work itself is accidental and the inured rarely expects construction defects.” Mandel and Raab put forth that “these decisions essentially provide insured with huge, unintended and unfair windfalls – performance bonds for basically no premium.”
Legislatures have also looked at this issue, passing laws that mandate that construction defects are occurrences. These are all fairly recent and the courts have yet to address these laws, and Mandel and Raab note that “it is unclear what their ultimate effect on the ‘occurrence’ issue will be.” They do not expect the laws to end litigation over whether construction defects are occurrences.
Finally, they discuss what the ultimate results of these court decisions and laws will be. Insurers might write more policy exclusions, or increase premiums, or even cease insuring construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations
August 20, 2019 —
Jessica Burtnett & Jessica N. Kull - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client after oral argument for a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull represented an insurance broker who was sued by one of its customers, a property management company, for failure to procure a correct policy of insurance that would have provided coverage for an underlying class action lawsuit asserting statutory violations.
In their motion, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the Plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable two year statute of limitations outlined in the Illinois Insurance Producers Act 735 ILCS 5/13-214.4. Based on a recent ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop, 2018 IL 122556, ¶ 13, reh’g denied (Nov. 26, 2018), Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the statute of limitations began to accrue at the moment the allegedly non-conforming policy was delivered to the customer Plaintiff. In this case, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the subject policy was purchased and received before it became effective on November 25, 2015. Thus, at the absolute latest, the statute of limitations expired two years later on November 25, 2017. Since the lawsuit was not filed until October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was approximately 10 months too late to assert a valid claim.
In response, the Plaintiff tried to factually distinguish the Krop case by arguing it involved a claim against a captive agent rather than a broker. Plaintiff further argued that a broker maintains a fiduciary duty to its clients and, therefore, the two year statute of limitations applied in Krop did not apply to a broker. Plaintiff also argued the Illinois Insurance Placement Liability Act was unconstitutional.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Burtnett, Traub Lieberman and
Jessica N. Kull, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Burtnett may be contacted at jburtnett@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kull may be contacted at jkull@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime
February 24, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelEarlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two important environmental cases—one that could change the approach to routine maritime charters and another that could introduce a potentially punishing permitting regime via a CWA citizen suit.
Cleaning the Delaware: CITGO Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company
The CITGO case involves a large oil spill into the Delaware River, and who bears financial responsibility for the cleanup. CITGO chartered an oil tanker to bring Venezuelan crude oil to CITGO’s New Jersey refinery located on the Delaware River. The tanker struck a submerged and abandoned anchor within yards of the refinery, and a large and expensive oil spill resulted. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, both the shipper, Frescati Shipping Company, and the United States, paid for the immediate oil spill response, and CITGO was later sued for a large share of these costs based on the fact that it entered into a charter with Frescati, which obliged CITGO to provide a “safe berth.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that CITGO was liable under the principles of maritime law, meaning that CITGO was strictly liable for the spill even if no one knew that the anchor was present on the floor of the river or lurking in the waters of the Delaware River. CITGO has argued that this result is unfair and poses a threat to the maritime shipping industry if it is held to be strictly liable for this spill. It appears that this is may well be the majority rule that is applied when interpreting these routinely entered maritime charters. The Court’s decision will be immensely important to the shipping industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis
November 02, 2017 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogCalifornia Evidence Code section 1119 governs the general admissibility of oral and written communications generated during the mediation process. Section 1119(a) provides that “[n]o evidence of anything said or any admission made
for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in any . . . civil action . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, section 1119(b) bars discovery or admission in evidence of any “writing . . . prepared
for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(b) (emphasis added). Finally, section 1119(c) provides that “[a]ll communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between
participants in the course of a mediation . . . shall remain confidential.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(c) (emphasis added).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit
August 24, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057796, filed 5/27/20, ord. pub. 6/18/20), a California appeals court ruled that an insurance bad faith lawsuit alleging a variety of claim handling misconduct in defending the insured was not subject to an insurer’s special Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion to strike because, while the alleged acts were generally connected to litigation, they did not include any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body and, therefore, did not constitute protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
In Trilogy Plumbing, the policyholder was sued in 33 different construction defect lawsuits, some of which Navigators defended, and others which were denied or had the defense withdrawn. The Navigators’ policies were subject to a $5,000 deductible, and Trilogy alleged that Navigators breached the contracts by “demanding deductible reimbursement amounts greater than the policies’ $5,000 stated deductible, and by seeking reimbursement of ordinary defense fees and expenses as if they were subject to deductible reimbursement,” “claiming a right to seek reimbursement from Trilogy for defense fees and expenses Navigators paid for the benefit of third-party additional insureds,” “providing conflicted defense counsel who took instructions only from Navigators without disclosing conflicts of interest,” “failing to reasonably settle cases and by withdrawing [the] defense as a strategic means of trying to force Trilogy to fund its own settlements,” “misrepresenting its deductible provisions,” “refusing to account for deductible amounts it charges and collects,” and others.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
